6 months later: impressions of 4e

[Jack99]

Wow, that's pretty presumptuous. The "not able" part makes this post seem especially elitist. It seems to read "if you don't like 3E, you're just not doing it right."

And I thought he just said 4e players were stupid, silly me.

 

[Harlekin]

Why not? Is the way I put it not insulting enough?

I think you should accept that 4e appeals to some people who are 3e "system masters", with considerable experience using 3e to produce a range of different campaigns/play experiences.

ie me and my group.

I think this post highlights the key difference between the two sides in this discussion.
4th edition supporters know 3.x and usually have years of experience playing the game. When making a statement about 3.x, they speak from experience.

4th edition detractors have usually played 0-3 session and read the rule book. When making a statement about 4th edition, they are making assertions (educated guesses).

 

[renevq]

No, that is absolutely not a better way of putting it.

Pretentious much? That is extremely condescending, assuming that people that enjoy 4e didn't "get" 3.x. I "got" it, got as much as I could out of the gaming system and had a ton of fun playing it. I just happen to enjoy 4e more. It's a better tool for my job just as 3.x is a better tool for your job.

 

[Gothmog]

No, that is absolutely not a better way of putting it.

Yes, it absolutely is a better way of putting it.

I'm what you call a system monkey- I look at a system, dissect it, tear it apart, and try to understand the inner workings of it. Maybe its the scientist in me (I'm a professor of neuroscience), but I like to take things down to their component level, and understand the fundamentals and theory, then put it back together again. That gives me a solid foundation to understand a system, its strengths, and its limitations. I did this for FIVE YEARS with 3.x, and I have a very good grasp on the system, what it is good at, and what its limitations are. While all humans have emotional attachments to certain ideas or theories, I based most of my analysis of 3.x on actual play, and on an analytical level because that is the way my mind works, and what I've been trained to do in my job. So when I say 3.x didn't get the job done for us, its been after careful analysis and trial- not some half-assed attempt at trying the system or trying to bait trolls. From what I've seen here, many of the other folks who enjoy 4e had a similar experience to my own, and fully udnerstand what 3.x is and how it plays, but we find 4e to be a superior game for our groups and playstyles. 3.x might be a better system for your games, and thats cool- I won't insult you or try to keep you from playing it.

In the past, I've seen you comment that 4e is like D&D "tee ball", and generally be condescending and rude to 4e fans. Is there really a need to be so condescending towards people who don't share your opinions? Its just a game after all- play whatever you like.

 

[Gothmog]

I think this post highlights the key difference between the two sides in this discussion.
4th edition supporters know 3.x and usually have years of experience playing the game. When making a statement about 3.x, they speak from experience.

4th edition detractors have usually played 0-3 session and read the rule book. When making a statement about 4th edition, they are making assertions (educated guesses).

I don't know if I'd go quite that far. There have been some folks who did give 4e a legitimate try (Quaesetron for example), and found it wasn't to their playstyles after months of play. I can respect that- not every system is perfect for everybody. I wouldn't go so far to paint all 4e detractors as uninformed or having never tried the system- thats clearly not true. However, I do think there is a large number of detractors who are like what you're describing (just read the books, or played 0-3 sessions), which isn't really enough experience with the system to understand its complexities and nuances.

 

[Mallus]

I don't know if I'd go quite that far.

I wouldn't. It's going to be the wrong tool for some people, and I believe them when they say they've tried it and don't like it.

(though anyone making blanket statements like '4e doesn't support detailed homebrew settings' or '4e doesn't support immersive character role-playing' is, well, playing it wrong)

 

[Gothmog]

I wouldn't. It's going to be the wrong tool for some people, and I believe them when they say they've tried it and don't like it.

(though anyone making blanket statements like '4e doesn't support detailed homebrew settings' or '4e doesn't support immersive character role-playing' is, well, playing it wrong)

Agreed. Blanket statements like that just show someone with an axe to grind, and who can't grasp the complexities of 4e.

But hey, we all win, since we all have a system we enjoy playing.

 

[Harlekin]

I don't know if I'd go quite that far. There have been some folks who did give 4e a legitimate try (Quaesetron for example), and found it wasn't to their playstyles after months of play. I can respect that- not every system is perfect for everybody. I wouldn't go so far to paint all 4e detractors as uninformed or having never tried the system- thats clearly not true. However, I do think there is a large number of detractors who are like what you're describing (just read the books, or played 0-3 sessions), which isn't really enough experience with the system to understand its complexities and nuances.

Hence my careful use of handwavey terms such as "usually". The point remains that practically (an other handwavey term) all of us know 3.x very well, and thus can speak with some authority about the system.

 

[Shazman]

The best way to sum up my impressions of 4E is that it is WotC's Vista.

 

[Mallus]

The best way to sum up my impressions of 4E is that it is WotC's Vista.

But 4e uses way less of the DM's system resources than 3e!